April 19, 2007

Coburn To Gonzales: Spend More Time With Your Family

I stopped live-blogging the Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Alberto Gonzales at the lunch break, and at that time Gonzales appeared to be struggling to explain himself even to the Republicans on the panel. Apparently it got no better for the Attorney General after the committee came back into session. Charles Grassley (R-IA) wondered why Gonzales's story kept changing, and Tom Coburn (R-OK) bluntly told him to quit:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confronted a fresh call for his resignation from a fellow Republican Thursday as he struggled to survive a bipartisan Senate challenge to his credibility in the case of eight fired prosecutors.

"The best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Sen. Tom Coburn bluntly told Gonzales, one GOP conservative to another.

Gonzales disagreed and told the Oklahoma senator he didn't know that his departure would put the controversy to rest. ...

After a long morning in the witness chair, he returned to face fresh Republican challenges to his credibility. "Why is your story changing?" asked Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, noting that the attorney general was now accepting responsibility for the firings after initially saying he had played only a minor role.

The Democrats hammered Gonzales, but that wasn't the story. Democrats won't decide Gonzales' fate. Senate Republicans will make the determination whether he has enough credibility to survive on Capitol Hill. The early reviews are less than promising.

My good friend Paul at Power Line is sticking by Gonzo, although not enthusiastically:

Alberto Gonzales isn't exactly winning rave reviews on our Forum or, it seems, around the conservative blogosphere generally. However, the main concession his interrogators seem to have gained so far is that Gonzales approved the termination recommendations with little or no scrutiny.

Now, President Bush might well want a more hands on Attorney General, and I certainly would. But unless the decisions made by staff and approved by Gonzales were poor or corrupt ones, I don't think his deference to staff requires his resignation or termination. I've seen no account in which the Senators have made much headway in terms of showing that particular decisions were poor or corrupt.

Byron York at National Review considers today "disastrous" for the AG:

It has been a disastrous morning for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The major problem with his testimony is that Gonzales maintains, in essence, that he doesn’t know why he fired at least some of the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys. When, under questioning by Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, Gonzales listed the reasons for each firing, it was clear that in a number of cases, he had reconstructed the reason for the dismissal after the fact. He didn’t know why he fired them at the time, other than the action was recommended by senior Justice Department staff.

That doesn't mean the Justice staff fired the prosecutors for improper reasons, but it does say something about Gonzales' competence. And even with hindsight, he still couldn't come up with a good reason for two of the seven.

What does all of this mean? It means that Gonzales is toast. One can write off Senators like Specter and Graham, but Tom Coburn is part of the conservative backbone in the Senate. That is a clear message to the White House to start placing ads in the paper for the upcoming opening in senior management.

I'll add more links as I see them.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Coburn To Gonzales: Spend More Time With Your Family:

» Gonzales on Firings: Just Keep White House Informed from The American Mind
In his questioning of Alberto Gonzales Sen. Russ Feingold asked whether any inquiries were made about why certain U.S. Attorneys were put on the chopping block. Gonzales couldn’t remember. The only management Gonzales exercised was telling his ch... [Read More]

» Gonzales: Clueless As to Why the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired from Patterico's Pontifications
Sam Brownback is dealing the death blow to Alberto Gonzales, by asking a simple and straightforward question: why were these U.S. Attorneys fired? It’s clear from Gonzales’s answer that, when he approved these firings, he really didn’... [Read More]

» Bye Bye 'Berto? from Bill's Bites
I didn't try to keep up with the Gonzales hearing but Patterico did and he says he's toast. Click here, here, here and here. Captain Ed wasn't too impressed either. Adios, muchacho. [Read More]

» Bush Pleased With Gonzales Performance from Outside The Beltway | OTB
President Bush has issued a statement praising Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ performance before the Senate yesterday, saying he was “pleased” and that it “showed that nothing improper occurred.” Given the formal natu... [Read More]

Comments (55)

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 4:44 PM

Eactly what did Gonzales expect?

Sort'a like watching an accident happening in slow motion.

And, ahead? Maybe, we can paraphrase Winston Churchill? Here? "Gonzales will eventually do the right thing. After having tried everything else."

Bush, digging his own hole, is not helped, either, by the return of James Baker. And, Gates.

If he thinks he's gonna shoot his way out of this; by attacking iran, I think you're gonna see a massive uproar from senators. Not just the donks, either.

How does crap like Gonzales get "selected?" Does bush really believe in affirmative action? Or is he so without talent, that he prefers his cohorts "lackluster?"

Posted by muirgeo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 4:45 PM

This isn't about Gonzo anymore. It's about his bosses he is covering for who are willing to subvert our justice system to CYA and for political reasons. It's really time for this whole stinking incompetent administration to step down.

I'm so sick of the corruption.

Posted by ohmyachingback [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 6:59 PM

I wish Gonzo would tell them to stuff it. The fact remains (and no one has proved otherwise) that the attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President". I wish someone would state they didn't please the President any longer so they needed to be gone!!

Groveling gets the GOP no where; some "in your face" might be a welcome change.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:03 PM

I cannot say I am disappointed in Gonzales' performance - I never had any expectations about him.

It sure isn't about him covering for ANYONE - it is about the "Conservatives" NOT having the balls to stand up for their own convictions and face down the DESTRUCTIVE Liberals, their feloneous actions and their Socialistic policies that are tearing this nation apart - while those in DC who DO KNOW better sit on their hands afraid of what they "look" like to others if they stand up for what they CLAIMED to REAL CONSERVATIVES that they so-called "BELIEVE IN".

And we all know the Dim Liberals have tons of cases of feloneous vote fraud that NEED to be prosecuted, and never will be! Thanks to limp wrists like Gonzales.

Looks like Gates is from the same cloth! UGH!

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:04 PM

Bush must wear ear plugs.

For a president he is so way out of touch!

You don't think Grassley and Coburn, being republicans, didn't clue in at least Andy Card, that "gonzo" should quit?

You think what you heard during the hearings were a suprise? Hell, no, I don't.

But you can't tell Bush anything.

You can't show him that he's lost more than just the public, now! He's lost members of his own "club."

Would you like an example from history?

Rodino. Republican. New Jersey. Nixon's hearings. WHEN HE THREW IN THE TOWEL, IT WAS ALL OVER!

At least for the Republicans, except for the hiatus with Jimmy Carter; they came back into DC with a vengance.

Oy. Vengance isn't the right word when you're talking about Ronald Reagan. The guy with a smile and a twinkle in his eye, that brought him lots of American support.

And, he was no panty waist. Since it's on his watch, and through his behaviors, that you see a stronger Britian. And, the push that shoved that reprehensible communist, Ortega, out of Central America.

The senators, by the way, across the board, were terrified of Reagan. Because they knew a popular president; especially someone who looked forward to being on the nightly news; could dispense with them just by telling Americans he didn't think this one, or that one, was serving his constituents well.

Tip O'Niell said so! He also loved Reagan. Different parties. Two Irishmen. Yeah. They got along fine.

Politics is not something where a senator is willing to jump on his sword for an idiot in the White House. Or even Nixon. Who wasn't an idiot. Just not a very good president. Didn't know that to get stuff done you need to be popular.

As far as I'm concerned the Bush's are just as rotten as the CIA. Dispicable people. WHo are now running into trouble. Can't get anything done.

Turns out that if Bush just treads water, time passes; as what he can do, wanes.

The only reason Gonzales is up on the HIll, now? Bush has no idea that he's incompetent. The boss likes very polite men and women; who dress well. Serving him plates full of "yes sir."

If Bush had brains it would not have come to this! Gonzales would have met his resignation letter as soon as it became apparent that he had NO IDEA what he was doing! He was nothing but a rubber stamp for others. Even now, he thinks he's right "because he could do." It's a perogative. Uh huh.

Man's an idiot.

Watch the microscope that comes out when Bush needs to nominate someone else for a job that requires the senators to 'consent."

This marriage bed is no longer a honeymoon. We've got a president sleeping in the dog house.

And, he did it TO himself! Pompus ass.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:09 PM

Listened to the whole thing on radio. Gonzalez said he couldn't recall 48 times. Also said he doesn't know WHO CAME UP WITH THE LIST OF THE EIGHT ATTORNEYS TO BE FIRED! He also said he doesn't remember his conversation with GWB on Nov 26, 2006! I have to wonder if he actually is in charge of the Justice Department. I doubt if he was calling the shots in the DOJ.He said he okayed the firings WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEIR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS! If the gop wants to keep him, fine. The man is a joke, another Bush crony. Heckuva job Fredo.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:15 PM

It's like watching Abbott and Costello, the only real issue is figuring out which one of the bozos is playing Costello, is it Gonzo or the Chimp?

According to the guy keeping score in the audience, conservative democrat, the number was over 70 times that Gonzo stated he could not recall. Makes you wonder how he ever got through law school with such a bad memory. Has anyone even checked to see if he has graduated? Heck he may have bought his law degree online somewhere.

The "top attorney in the US" showed us today that there actually is someone in the Bush administration worse than the president himself.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:24 PM

Careful, Monkei! "I don't recall" was, as I recall, a staple answer when various members of the Clinton gang testified before the Congress.

As you say, kind of makes you wonder how they all got through law school with memories like that.

Not that I'm defending Gonzales, who should obviously have never been made USAG, but be careful about throwing too many stones lest you break windows in your own house.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:40 PM

doc ... unlike most on here I have real issues with both parties and the status quo of 90 percent of all congressman returning to do the supposed work of the people. All administrations have their problems and issues, Clinton's also. But now is now, Gonzo is the man on the hot seat now. We can't change what Clintons staff did or did not do but we surely can't take the all to right wing wacko excuse of "they did it to". It's a staple of the right wing nut jobs, just like blaming the MSM for everything.

Hey Doc, maybe a better response in keeping with Gonzo's appearance today, would be to simply say "I don't recall Clinton's administration having problems."

Posted by CJ [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:50 PM

I believe that any senator criticizing the AG is like the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe the AG should have shown the same respect for the senators that they showed him by saying he would resign if they all did.

Personally, I don't truly believe Bush loses any more political capital than he already has lost by keeping the AG around. We see right now how nothing at all is getting done, including getting the minimum wage bill agreed upon and over tn the president for his signature. If they can't even do that, there isn't much danger they will get much of anything done.

If I were the AG right now, I'd give them a big "F*** You" and do my job. The senators should be getting to all of the other more important things they should be getting to other than this witch hunt.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 7:59 PM

I agree with you that Gonzo is on the hot seat and (as I wrote earlier) he deserves to be thoroughly roasted. What a dumbass!

You're also right about many on the right blaming the MSM for our woes... much like many on the left blame Rush, Fox News, talk radio, and blogs for their woes.

"I don't recall Clinton's administration having problems."

Good one, but how about:

"I never saw any of the testimony... Oh... You've got a memo that says I did... OK, well, I know that memo says I watched the testimony, but actually I only watched people talking about the testimony... Oh... Another memo... Um, I can explain that one, too... That memo says that I was going to play tapes I made of the testimony at my house, and that I invited many people to BYOB to watch them with me, but what really happened is that, while I attended numerous meetings to discuss the process by which I would watch the testimony, I never actually saw any of it and nobody on my staff told me that any witnesses said 'I don't know'.... Why, yes, my name is Alberto Gonzales... I mean, I think it is... Nobody on my staff has informed me differently, so I'm pretty sure... Isn't that on a memo somewhere? Mommy stopped writing it in my underwear, so I can't be certain..."

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 8:04 PM

"We've got a president sleeping in the dog house.
And, he did it TO himself! Pompus ass."

AMEN!!!!!!! Bush is the Opposition Parties best friend these last two years; a gift that just keeps on giving.

This Moonbat is thankful at least. I favor divided rule and if a FISCAL (not a $%#$* bible thumper!) Conservative were nominated by your Party I would seriously consider voting for him. Sadly since I've found out that Guliani don't know the 1st from the 2nd I cannot support him. any candidate worth a crap MUST at least value our Constitution enough to have read it!!

Heres to 16 yrs of Democratic rule in America!! ;-).

Posted by Stormy70 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 8:11 PM

I have to take issue with your commentary. I have yet to see a backbone from anyone in the Senate during any of the show hearings. It is all just camera posturing. The Republicans are a disgrace, and they lost the Senate because of it.

Posted by muirgeo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 8:26 PM

And we all know the Dim Liberals have tons of cases of feloneous vote fraud that NEED to be prosecuted, and never will be! Thanks to limp wrists like Gonzales.

Looks like Gates is from the same cloth! UGH!

Posted by Rose

Apparently you don't know Rose.


Government Manipulates Research Again, This Time on Voter Fraud

You those who continue to pledge blind allegiance to these criminals I suspect you do so on the same basis some cultist followed Jim Jones to Guyana and on the same basis some join the Taliban and Al Queda. Religion is a way of controlling people like you and you need to wake up. Bush and his cronies are NOT the party of Christ.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 9:16 PM

OKay, monkie, that's funny! Whose playing Abbott? ANd, whose the tall skinny guy, playing Costello?

Beats most people, in understanding why Bush decided to "stand his ground and fight."

I guess, he figured it's Gonzales' mess. Harriet Miers picked up her crayons and left the building.

ANd, yes. Because I've read it through here, I now see, right at the top, Captain Ed reports the words of Grassley. And, Coburn. The solid punches are coming from the Conservatives, themselves. (After, I am sure, Arlen Specter "mentioned" to the White House folks, that they were gonna have trouble with reality.)

And, trouble it is.

Boobs. Affirmative action hires. A white House that has no idea of where it wants to go. Choices get limited when you're heading downhill.

As I said, I read in Supreme Conflict; Harriet Miers had no idea she got failing grades from the people who were there to prop her up for her Hill hearings. They tried. And, all she did was "mumble." She thought if the President nominates, the senate "rubber stamps."

It boggles the mind.

Bush isn't happy with low approval numbers. So he tried this, thinking Gonzales could bluff it out. ANd, claim "executive privilege."

You know. Bush can do anything he wants to do, because he's the prez.

Heck, he could even start a war without provocation. Using 16 words that STUNK.

And, ya know what else? The truth would have worked FINE. But would have involved pointing to the HOUSE OF SAUD. And, showing how their money was linked to terror. And, Saddam also used money FOR terror. Then? It might have made some sense.

But that's not what was in the plans.

Those CIA plans stunk, too.

The "trained" Chalabi, arrived with his men in C-130's. Touched ground while Tommy Franks was still fighting. ANd, they began looting for the TV cameras!

Gosh, Bush has turned his presidency into six long years, now. And, supposedly? Besides the Saud's promising to cut Israel to shreds "to save the Mideast," we get Gates going to Baghdad, trying to stop the clock. ANd, James Baker trying to force-feed the Sauds' $8-billion in military upgrades.

Wait. Bigger guns are coming out.

Mr. George Tenet, who gladly took the Medal of Freedom from Bush, is now almost "published." And, he's gonna hit Dick Cheney and the President hard. Won't look like Abbott & Costello, anymore.

While all the neo-cons are gone. Don Rumsfeld's gone.

What's Bush gonna defend with? James Baker? A lot of good James Baker did Reagan and Bush #41. Did you see how fast Bush #41 was rolled out of office in 1992?

Yup, it seems to me that Gonzales is a disaster. The fired attorneys have enhanced their reputations. And, have definitely done so, politically speaking.

To imagine that a clown like Gonzales can attend meetings, where he then goes out and fires people, sure looks awful, when it was Gonzales who was about as incompetent as you can get.

And, Libby is the one facing jail.

The comedy of it all.

Shows ya what happens when you pick a pig in the poke. Because you thought this president would pepper the Supreme's with justices. He's got two "in." And, no clout left.

What a mess. What a crying shame. And, a president way too dumb for political hardball.

Posted by james23 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 9:18 PM

Most of the time I don't understand Carol's first couple of lines, and skip the rest. But above, she nails it in 2:

"Bush must wear ear plugs.

For a president he is so way out of touch!"

Whats sad is, that is exactly how I felt in 92, and again since midlle of 05.

Posted by 2008 can't come sooner [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 9:28 PM

If I hear the phrase "the US Attorneys serves at the pleasure of the President" I am going to throw up. George Bush has pleasured himself into a corner with all the politically motivated shenanigans he has allowed Rove "turd blossom himself" to mastermind. This administration has pissed on the constitution and made a complete mockery of the justice system for our country. Gonzales is so far in over his head he should go back to helping out Texas political wonks with their DWI charges. What a disgrace.

Posted by Psycheout [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 9:45 PM

All this "I don't recall" nonsense does not give me a lot of confidence in an Attorney General. Sad but true. Gonzalez may be Gone-zo.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 10:36 PM

Gonzales is toast?


Just like you said Olmert was a goner?

Captain, you again underestimate this President.

and frankly, it seems you want this to be the result, even when we were seeing a bit of miscommunication.

it is a stunning revelation for you...

and a sign of stubborn conviction, which blinds the objectivity.

for example, the DEMOCRATS aren't the story?


they made this a story and you are falling right into it.

the SENATE, even Coburn are some of the most lackluster wimps we have witnessed in Washington for years...

i watched the full exchange, and a meaningless political smear is given teeth, by folks like yourself.

no negligence whatsoever...

and even if AG Gonzales is poor in testimony, it is nothing to do with delegation of a job.

funny, because these Senators looked like Elite frauds, grandstanding, over NOTHING.

no malfeasance whatsoever...

and meanwhile, bloggers like yourself, are more interested in enabling this, than Senator Reid's land deals, or Senator Feinstein's peddling influence with military contracts to her husbands business.

really sad...

but i give Powerline great credit, for they don't lose sight of the big picture.

to bad, some cannot see it.

Posted by Right2thePoint [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 10:46 PM


This ain't about whatever you have a personal hard on for.

It is about right and wrong and simple slips of the lips by someone too inept.

In your post I can almost envision you stoking it and pokeing it.

Man you are a sad lot to say the least.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2007 11:43 PM

The problem with conservative aspirations for the Republican Party is that too many conservatives aren't really Republicans at all. They are conservatives only, and vote Republican because the GOP nearly always fields the most conservative candidate in the race. They are always ready to throw a Republican to the wolves if they aren't sufficiently conservative, or aren't PERCEIVED as such. No loyalty at all.

Well, the GOP sure needs these conservative independents in the general elections, but when they get involved in party matters, they generally cause strife.

Dubya is a loyal guy, and Gonzo is an old friend. If he isn't convinced Gonzo did something wrong beyond political insensitivity, he won't ask him to leave. Why would he? You think a little blood in the water satisfies the sharks?

US Attorneys do not serve "at the pleasure of the President." They are appointed to four-year terms and confirmed by the Senate. They may serve an additional four years without being re-confirmed, and this is the part which is at the pleasure of the Prez.

Were the firings "political" in some way? So what? The second term of a US Atty is a political position; what did you think would motivate firings, unfavorable ratings from a panel of fashion experts?

And, as Brooklyn notes above, the conservatives are falling all over themselves to swallow the Democrats' non-issue. Idiots like Specter and Coburn are only making matters worse. They gain nothing if Gonzo goes: the Senate is no stronger in the long run for their having deserted the ship.

Barring direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the replacement of the "fired" US Attys, this is nothing but a Democratic witch hunt. And too many of you supposed Republicans and conservatives are carrying torches and pitchforks along with them.

The worst sort of dumbass is the one who should know better.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 12:07 AM

In the Mafia, the "family" gets respect. Disrespect comes at a very high cost.

Here? Bush is showing his "respect" for an incompetent he put in the job? Excuse me. But ya got a problem.

The other problem that looms large has to do with the divisive nature the conservatives played their politcal hand.

You think it's your way or the highway?

Bush has done more damage to the conservatives than you think. Because he's a disaster. Doing what he wants. Eliminating qualified people. And, going with his affirmative action dreck.

Oddly enough, this wasn't the conservative agenda!

So labels count, though, huh?

What happens when being part of a winning team is more important than being hostile. And, think you'll always win what you want; because "God wants it that way."

Lincoln was a fatalist. He was brought up in a Calvinist home; though he eschewed branded Christianity in all its forms. Preferring instead, Robert Burns poetry. Which is sarcastic in its lambasting the hypocracy of those who shout from the pulpits.

Still, the Civil War, where Lincoln knew he was right! Had so many discouraging down turns, you get to see a real man's approach to doing God's work. No matter what the drawbacks. Lincoln approached the plate. And, stuck to what was right. While the Union kept losing. And, that, too, was due to Lincoln's reliance on some pretty bad generals. You bet, even our great Lincoln, deferred to the opinions (for a time), from the "professionals." Guys that loved to march a lot. Who had also been hoping the Union would "compromise" and not force the south to ever give up it's "wants."

The "wants" went "that'a'way.

One of the strengths of a good president, is his awareness of the whole political landscape. Where he's working with elected officials who are local yokels. Or big fishes in smaller ponds.

How did Bush get in this much trouble?

Even if Gonzales limps back to the White House; what he shot was a wad of capital.

You keep doing that, and you take a downturn, into bankruptcy.

It's possible, in back of Bush's head, is the idea that he can go in and shoot up iran. He ain't got the capital!

He thought he could redesign the map of the Mideast. The House of Saud also thought they'd come out ahead.

Meanwhile? If you take the Al-Kay-duh links, and line them up; what's most apparent is that the HOUSE OF SAUD and the EGYPTIANS have been up to their eyeballs in trying to divert democracy, right into their own coffers. Do they have pants pockets in those dresses?

We're not supposed to notice?

Bush thinks he can go from this to bombing Tehran?

Or, what do you think he will do to get out of this nose dive?

The issue that a "president can do what he wants," should have been answered by the terms of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter.

We don't elect people to just go ahead and use the privileges of their office for their own pleasure.

In the give and take of politics, it is necessary to go out there and get popular approval.

You didn't know this? You didn't know that Reagan spent time seeking ACROSS THE BOARD approval? You think he just did jigs with religious folk? Whose been writing those textbooks for you?

Whatever possessed Bush to nominate Harriet Miers? And, how come, after the Libby scandal, he didn't fire Gonzales, I have no idea!

But you want a test for the AG? It's not just to show up in meetings, and pass the buck(et). It's to have the moxie to challenge creeps like Fitzgerald.

If ya only looked.

You'd see Bush was the surgeon with all those dead patients on his table. Well, we're told "that's how the club works."

Something tells me that there are GOP senators, now, who will flummox the idiot in the White House at every turn. Because he is capable of more dangerous moves.

And, he's lost popular support.

Lincoln, on the other hand, always had it! People began pushing towards freeing the slaves. So that by the time he stood up to do it, a majority of Americans were begging him to do it.

That's how popular support works.

Bush has no experience at this. Because he's not even curious enough to learn.

What happened to day, out on C-SPAN, happened because Bush is unaware of consequences. And, when he's told things privately he just gets mad. Heck, he's the president!

When Clinton did this, Monica's bare ass was on the broadloom.

Posted by augdog [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 12:31 AM

i know senator, you think i should resign. this is your opinion,however opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. next question?

Posted by augdog [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 12:32 AM

i know senator, you think i should resign. this is your opinion,however opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. next question?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 12:34 AM

Brooklyn, get something straight! I think OMERT knows what he's doing. And, I've said this all along.

He's not popular. But he knows what he's doing in shark infested waters, no less.

Israeli politics is much harder hitting that what we do in this country. There all politicians get schmeared. And, the lawyers have their hands in everybody's pockets. The left leaning press is a disaster for that small state. And, the right? Were put in the "out's" because they didn't want to get dragged out of their GOVERNMENT homes, in gazoo.

That's what happens when "special interests" only care about their own ass cracks.

But Lebanon? It's true Olmert didn't go "all out." But he based his decision on the reality that all those missiles, shot by Nasrallah, were killing more cows that people.

Israeli's IDF plans, to go all out in Lebanon would have taken place if 1000 or more Jews got killed from those flying missiles. After that? Wall-to-wall diplo-shit dancing. And, I've arleady complained that part of the problem is NO ONE IS WILLING TO SAY THE TRUTH OUT LOUD.

Well, Israel suffers when it says the truth. The international press attacks her. So she just lets events speak for themselves.

As to Gonzales going or staying, I have no idea what happens "next." Bush is more than welcome to wrap himself in his incompetent hires. I even no longer care if Condi quits. Or not. But I've read that there's a deal for her to "go" and Negroponte to replace her. As if the permanent civil servants at State don't know how to survive different presidents! They use great crazy glue on their chairs, I guess?

For all the time Bush has had in office it now appears HE BLEW IT.

And, last summer (or before last summer), when he began to see the handwriting on the wall; he brought back James Baker.

No wonder there are politicians in BOTH PARTIES quite distressed at Bush.

Nixon was so much brighter. But also lost sight of LEADERSHIP. Leadership means the troops under you respect you very much. (They respected Patton! They respected MacArthur. And, in Israel, even during the hard times, they respected Arik Sharon!) Real leaders LEAD. And, they do it with affirmation. The people are there rooting for them. Through thick and thin.

Bush never achieved this sort of bonding. Nor did Nixon. Nor did Gerald Ford. Who lied in 1974, when he said he'd be "veep" and he'd never seek the presidency, himself. Well, professional politicians are great at throwing BS.

By the way, Brooklyn, if you think I'm the only one who fell off of Bush's bandwagon; you'd be mistaken. Again.

I don't like what I see developing, ahead, in the Mideast. And, I can't point to one thing Bush has done that rates a positive rating. NOT ONE.

Is he without better help?

It appears that those people who surround a candidate who lands in office, really do make a difference.

When Lyn Nofziger passed away, there was a blurb that his book, telling his story, was a terrific read. So I went to Amazon. And, true to what was said, his book was outstanding. There were a number of people surrounding Reagan who did not always agree with him. They'd been there, however, for decades. And, Reagan had BIG EARS. He listened.

Bush is driven nuts when his top staff don't agree.

In other words? Like Paul O'Niell said in THE PRICE OF LOYALTY. Big decisions would get made with very little discussion. Bush didn't ask for oppositional views.

Maybe, that's why he's now a punching bag? No one warned him?

Under two years more. And, nobody knows what's "next."

But if Gonzales was the kind of guy Bush keeps close, he has no idea; ZERO, what quality people look like. That's what you call a "protected life."

And, he still can't put a speech together where Americans would tune in and listen.

So, no. I have no idea what Gonzales does.

Maybe, all he'll do is be bitter?

Imagine that! The president's man goes to the Hill, and two conservative senators told him "to go and spend more time with his family." While the real performers, for those who watched this on C-Span was to see the ranting audience. I think they used the word "impeach."

That's not such a funny shoe to toss in the air. Not even in jest.

Posted by CayuteKitt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 1:34 AM

Why is it that the GOP members of Congress are uniquely lacking in spines and gonads lately..... except when it comes to eviscerating members of their own party?!?

Coburn can take a hike, no matter how Conservative he may be.... shame on him for jumping into and participating in this utterly farce carnival side-show courtesy of the Democratic Party, which has not let up the drumbeat to destroy the GOP and Bush and the Bush Administration for one moment in the past four years or more.

If the GOP members fought back against the insanity that has gripped Congress courtesy of the Democrats half as vigorously as they've been shooting down their own in an effort to put on a good, albeit false, show of integrity.... perhaps they wouldn't be sweating the next election cycle so much.

Conservative voters are solid and loyal, and have shown they will fight hard for what is right, and what is Right. That's if the GOP will only shed itself of the Inside-the-Beltway sickness that's gripped them for the past six years or so and start acting like Conservatives again.

Get a real backbone, GOP Congress! Quick! I haven't missed voting in a major election in decades, and I'd sure hate to start sitting out now because I'm sick and not a little discouraged and cynical about where the GOP is heading these days. Or not. Due to lack of conviction and leadership strength.

Posted by The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 3:05 AM

I don't think it's the conservatives but the "smart set" that wants Gonzalez' head on a pike. I sure am not loyal to the "smart set", because of baloney like this.

I don't know why Gonzalez is toast. Surely no man is irreplaceable, but checking the idea that the Cabinet serves at the pleasure of the Senate Judiciary Committee is worth fighting over. So is the fact that resigning in the midst of a mudstorm is tantamount to confessing to the worst i.e. "resigned amid allegations he had fired prosecutors who too fiercely pursued Republicans". There is no counter to that, it is true that was alleged and it would be true that he resigned.

The only thing worse than suffering a witch hunt, is folding under the threat of one. It is not about Gonzalez, if it ever really was.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 4:03 AM

The Yell wrote (April 20, 2007 03:05 AM):

I don't think it's the conservatives but the "smart set" that wants Gonzalez' head on a pike. I sure am not loyal to the "smart set", because of baloney like this.

I see the point that you, CayuteKitt, Adjoran and others make: let's not throw people to the democrat sharks, who are themselves a pack of crooks who should be behind bars and not behind a Senate committee table.


Gonzales fired US attorneys and apparently doesn't know why.

While that isn't illegal, is this the sort of incompetent boob we want running the DoJ?

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 5:54 AM

Isn't it about time that these show hearings not allow audiences that bandy placards, wear costumes, and shout insults as if they are an audience on "The View" or "Monty Hall"?

Where is the dignity or seriousness of purpose when a circus atmosphere prevails in a supposedly serious inquiry?

These hearings epitomize all of the anarchy of mob rule and award the best performance category to the Senator with the best sound bite. Is this more "reality television" where the decision of who gets throw off the island is determined by who clamors most?

Bah! Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 6:08 AM

Let me say this.

Gonzales could easily have fired, or okay the firing of, people who he wasn't sure why. If done at the request of the President, or of one of his advisers, this should have been the end of the story. But, let me recap WHY we are where we are.

They got fired. Should have been noted, and forgotten. Instead, the Democrats decide WRONGLY that hey have some jurisdiction in this case. They don't. The Attorney General, along with the US Attorneys, ALL serve at the whim of the President. This was the first mistake. When congress said something, the White House should have said in no uncertain terms, "Nunya. Never has been, and never will be, and no reason for it to be different now." At that point, they should have refused to cooperate with anything they wanted to do, and made ten kinds of hell for anyone who wanted to follow it, accusing them of stalling on legislation and doing the work of the people, which is THEIR INTENT, so they can't be called do-nothings.

Stop the hearings now by going on the TV every day and explaining to the American people just how out of bounds they are. Explain how Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong, except not make some people happy with his explanations.

He didn't recall? Please, I dare ANY of you to get on the stand, knowing that you'll spend years in prison if you get it wrong, and start telling your story. At the first contradiction, it's jail time for you. Now, how many times do you think YOU'LL say "I don't recall"?

And let's not forget, this is a minor matter. It's understandable that he wasn't totally involved (after all, he does have a case or two more important than the simple firing of an attorney) or totally aware every moment of what was going on, or why something was being done, especially when he wasn't the one deciding. On the other hand, when the Democrats went into their THOUSANDS of "I don't recall's", it was over matters directly under their hand, things they were doing, and most of them illegal (sexual relations with interns is illegal, firing an attorney is not; stealing documents from the National Archives is a felony, not remembering why someone was fired is NOT).

There should be nothing here, because this is totally out of the hands of congress to decide on, one way or the other. They have no place demanding the resignation of a cabinet officer under any circumstances, but MOST ESPECIALLY WHEN TO A MAN/WOMAN, THEY HAVE SAID THEY CAN FIND NO WRONGDOING.

I am ashamed of ALL OF YOU who have dumped on this man. You are a bunch of fair weather Republicans. I'd rather you be democrats, because that's the way you act. No sense of personal responsibility for the harm YOUR WORDS are causing.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 6:30 AM

To be clear, Bush's strategy needs to be this: The Dems asked you to elect them for their BETTER ability to govern, but since they've been in office, they have not only refused to do their jobs, but have spent most of their time trying to do everyone else's job, mostly mine. You didn't elect them president, and it's the president's job to do these things. It's congress' job to legislate, to run the business of the country, but they won't do that. Pending legislation that requires their attention urgently is sitting there ignored while they go on one witch hunt after another, for no other purpose than to try and hurt me politically directly, and to indirectly hurt the Republican party in order to try and secure the presidency in 08. This is shameful. You should hold those you elected accountable for not even doing their jobs, much less not doing them well, or the way the public wants the job done. We didn't ask for a new minimum wage, the support for that was much less than fifty percent, especially if you ask it "Do you support minimum wage increases for everyone except where it will hurt Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry's companies?". We didn't ask for Harry Reid to become a land baron, or his sons to rezone Nevada to their back account's content. We didn't ask for Pelosi et al to go on junket after junket, wasting money faster than the supposed crooks they replaced.

Somebody has to stand up to the lies and misdirection. If you guys won't, who will?

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 6:49 AM

Gonzales delegated many of the day to day duties to his staff. That's not illegal.

The attorneys were fired at the will of the President. It may have been callous, but it's not illegal.

Understand that in 2007 we live in an "At-Will Employment" world. I'm willing to bet that unless you are your own boss, you are an at-will employee. This means you or your employer have a right to terminate your employment for any reason save illegal ones at any time.

You're not owed anything by your employer. In the global economy, competition is too tough. If you want to see why America remains on top of the economic heap, it's because we've gone from a union shop to at-will employees. The result is a strong economy, a record Dow Jones, and unemployment that continues to be the lowest in modern American history.

If your boss came to you this afternoon and said "Pack your desk when you leave today, we're eliminating your position for financial reasons" there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You will most likely find another job soon, because the unemployment rate is better then it was under any Democrat. But you wouldn't have any recourse. You're an at-will employee.

Guess what? So are US Attorneys. In the end, they are at-will employees. So are cabinet officials. They have been at-will employees for decades. It didn't matter before, until Alberto Gonzales refused to say "We fired them because the White House told us to." Which is the truth. And it's not illegal. They are at-will employees.

The fact that this is generating Senate hearings is proof that the Democrats are simply trying to attack Bush, and the media is complicit in that attack.

Gonzales refuses to implicate his boss and friend. That's a both good, and bad idea. That's his only real crime, that the President is his friend. But unlike Clinton's perjury, nothing illegal went on here. The White House should be pounding this daily.

The real problem here is the Senate GOP who are turning on Bush and Gonzales. We'll remember them in future elections. They'll have to contend with primary opponents who recognize that party unity is still important, even when the boss's job is up for grabs.

Posted by Immolate [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:06 AM

No offense to the Republican "realists" on this thread, but giving in to the relentless pressure that the Democrat/media confluence generates is just throwing blood in the water.

When there is a case of actual wrong-doing, the administration should take the matter seriously, investigate thoroughly and quietely, and then deal with it appropriately and without fanfare. Bush isn't running for anything.

When, as is almost always the case, it is a matter of manufactured scandal, the administration should ignore, resist, twist arms and otherwise play hard-core hardball politics without giving the media or the Democrat majority anything more than is legally required.

I appreciate Bush's idealism when it comes to dealing with innocents like the Iraqi people. But he cannot extend that idealism to the Democrats. They are cynical and unprincipled as a group and cannot ever be trusted to play fair or honestly. While most Democratic voters are regular folks, the leadership is a collection of socialists and other radicals who have no particular allegiance to or love for America.

I am not suggesting that the President or any other Republican behave like the Democrats. I am suggesting that they should be treated like rabid dogs and rendered as impotent as is possible.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:12 AM

DOc Neaves,

Excellent points, but I stand by my criticism of Gonzales and - indirectly - Bush.

You're right: had they said from the outset that they had every right to fire the attorneys it would have looked rather draconian, but I think that it would have squelched this tempest in a teapot.

But they didn't do that. To make things worse, Gonzales' story seems to change every time a new crop of memoes comes to light. Again, the man is either a liar or spectacularly incompetent. I don't find either trait to be acceptable in the USAG (I also don't find them to be attractive in a US Senator, but I'm afraid that our system seems geared toward electing dishonest idiots).

As Adjoran notes above, there are people who consider themselves "conservatives" and vote Republican because, of the two parties, the GOP is closest to being "conservative". I'm one of those people, or rather, have become one after watching the GOP morph into "democrat-lite" over the past few years.

Part of being "conservative" is expecting good government overseen by reasonably competent, reasonably honest people; we don't expect saintly geniuses in the White House, the Congress, the courts, or the bureaucracy. My problem with Slick Willie, aside from the fact that he was far from being conservative, was that he was completely dishonest. My problem with Janet Reno, which she proved at Waco and in the shameful Elian Gonzales affair, was that she was an idiot.

I haven't decided whether Gonzales is a liar or an idiot (maybe he's both), but, in either case, he needs to go.

Posted by Redhand [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:22 AM

But if Gonzales was the kind of guy Bush keeps close, he has no idea; ZERO, what quality people look like. That's what you call a "protected life."
Bravo Carol Herman! I recall you as one of Bush's more dogged, and loquacious, supporters. Not any more. Bush's continuing support for Gonzo reveals just what a waste he himself is. To me it's like we no longer have a chief executive, just a petulant overgrown teen who is putting the country into free fall.

Bravo Monkei too. I know many here consider you a leftist troll, but I was heartened to see you say:

unlike most on here I have real issues with both parties and the status quo of 90 percent of all congressman returning to do the supposed work of the people. All administrations have their problems and issues, Clinton's also.
When people from both sides of the spectrum like you two agree, that really says something.

I find what's happening in Washington now to be unbearably sad. The ship of state is rudderless, and that's not a good situation in any circumstances, much less in a war where Americans are literally being blown away every day.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:32 AM

I am ashamed of ALL OF YOU who have dumped on this man. You are a bunch of fair weather Republicans. I'd rather you be democrats, because that's the way you act. No sense of personal responsibility for the harm YOUR WORDS are causing.

Supporting someone just because they have an (R) beside their name or because they are part of an administration shows a sign of the lock-step mentality that has cost the GOP in the general election. Instead of speaking out about the utterly worthless job Gonzo has done you would rather sweep it under the rug and blame it on the Dems or the MSM. What is it about you and the rest of the loyal Bushies who can't step up to the plate and admit with an apple is spoiled and move on. Instead you would rather find ways to still use the spolled rotten fruit.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:51 AM

Agreed with docjim. Republican Senators like coburn have been led unwillingly to this position by Gonzales himself. A boob is a boob, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.

When this was about executive authority, the party faithful could back up the White House in good faith and to their own credit. Once it became about Gonzales' credibility and competence, no rational commentator could back him up.

And who made it about credibility and competence, rather than simply executive authority? Gonzales did, at the first opportunity.

This is a national embarrassment. The Bushies here talk about authority, well look around! The AG has none, and every day Bush's backs him, his authority comes closer to being nothing more than the paper its written on. It is a pathetic situation and the AG clinging stubbornly to his job is not only a cringe-inducing sad sight - it will probably widen the consternation into a wider scandal over the abuse of power that has occurred through DOJ.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:51 AM

Monkei...I'm not supporting him because he has an R next to his name, you idiot. Only a brain dead democrat could change what I said around to that (straw man argument, is what it's called) and then berate me for an argument I never made. Well, I guess we know how much of a mental midget you are. Thanks for showing us. We can now disregard all of YOUR posts as a Democratic attack hack.

"I haven't decided whether Gonzales is a liar or an idiot (maybe he's both), but, in either case, he needs to go."

Uh, in NEITHER case does he need to go, unless the president, not YOU, or anyone else, says so. It is not up to you or any citizen to decide, especially with the biased reporting your getting, on the guilt or innocence of someone. First of all, he's guilty of nothing.
Did he contradict something he said? Sure. I didn't have anything to do with that (maybe you'd have rather had another I don't recall, until he recalled it completely and truthfully) turns into, oh, I guess I did sit in on a meeting, or get a phone call, or have a conversation that HE SIMPLY FORGOT. So easy to believe Clinton forgot, Berger forgot, but Gonzales talking to an underling about an unimportant matter, and he forgets? GEEEEZ. Yes, DocJim, you are exactly the kind of conservative/Republican I'm talking about. First, it ain't YOUR place to decide. Second, if he IS guilty of being stupid, it ain't YOUR place to decide whether he stays or goes. Thirdly, if we're going to start letting YOU decide, then *I* get to decide, too, and that becomes voting, something the Founding Fathers thought would be extremely stupid, voting in the presidents cabinet. Fourth, you STAND BY YOUR MAN when he's done nothing wrong.
Now, you don't like the way things are going? The way he's handling it? Too damn bad. Again, nothing done wrong, he's just tripping over booby traps the Dems are setting for him, the same thing any man would do given the amount of harrassment he's getting over what should have been NOTHING, except he's not getting ANY damn support from the constituency since it seems to be the political game of the day to attack your own. AGAIN, HE'S DONE NOTHING WRONG, YET YOU THINK HE HAS TO GO? Yep, you are a great example of what's wrong with this country, someone with NO WILLPOWER to fight for what's right. Someone who will sacrifice your leaders (and I wonder why we don't have anyone rushing to the forefront of our party, huh?) at the drop of a hat, just to try and APPEASE the Democrats.
Conservatives appeasing. Geez, how that's always worked out in the past. Great job, DocJim et al. Who will you throw to the wolves next, whoever the Dems call for? Whichever scalp they determine will satisfy them? When do you fight, Jim? At what point will you stop this madness and say no more, from here on, I fight for what's right?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 7:58 AM

shorter Doc Neaves:

Voicing an opinion about the fitness of a appointed official threatens the Constitution.

And it's weak.

And "doing something wrong" doesn't include F-ing up your job royally, abdicating your duties, and/or lying about it, and losing the faith of the people under and around you.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 8:04 AM

And for what it's worth, the only "evidence" you have of his "incompetence" is the "way he's handling this". I'm not sure he could have handled it much better, because most of what's bad about this comes from Democrats, and now worthless disloyal Republicans, attacking him over nothing. How well would you stand up if everyone started questioning you, made you explain everything you did today? How long before you'd become paralyzed, if for no other reason, than realizing you were about to have to waste half your time answering trumped up charges of NO WRONGDOING? How would you react when not one person on your side came to your defense even a little bit. How would you act when YOUR OWN PEOPLE say "We can find nothing you have done wrong, but you still need to resign to fix something that we admit isn't broken"?

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 8:10 AM

Just show me where he f'd up his job...specifically, what did he do wrong? Show me what duty he abdicated? Show me where he lied, and mind you, Bill Clinton LIED, yet you called it not lying, show me where Gonzales said one thing where he intentionally covered something up? We've long ago covered the Scooter Libby kind of lying, making a mistake in remembering what something was, or when it happened, or misinterpreting someone's question, deciding that something doesn't qualify as what they asked, then later, realizing that it might, with a different perspective. Gee, I haven't seen ONE SINGLE INTENT TO DECIEVE yet. And as for losing the faith? That's a problem for those who are supposed to have faith, not just when everything's going their way, but at all times, unless you have evidence of wrongdoing.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 8:16 AM

And I never said voicing an opinion threatens the constitution. Care to make that argument in English so I can refute it? Show me where I said that.

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 8:40 AM

I'm with Doc Neaves on this. AG Gonzales's big mistake was in giving the Senate committee anything, least of all e-mail, which ought to be as privileged as private conversations in the hallway. That was a huge mistake, as was the White House doing the same thing. It has enabled the Democrats to fish with dynamite instead of worms, which of course the Washington Post and other liberal media just love.

Frankly, I also have to agree with Carol that the White House and Mr. Gonzales share equally in the incompetence department, foremost by giving the Democrats all the dynamite they need to keep killing fish.

Mr. Gonzales should just shut up and say, "I have nothing more to tell you. The US attorneys were canned; there was nothing illegal about it. End of story." And don't give them any more documents, for heaven's sake!

Calling for resignation just plays into Schumer's and Leahey's hands. The AG may be incompetent, but we should not give those blowhards the satisfaction of running him out of office.

As for "I don't recall," remember Rush's famous collage of Hillary Clinton's testimony.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 8:44 AM

In English:

Second, if he IS guilty of being stupid, it ain't YOUR place to decide whether he stays or goes. Thirdly, if we're going to start letting YOU decide, then *I* get to decide, too, and that becomes voting, something the Founding Fathers thought would be extremely stupid, voting in the presidents cabinet.

Is anyone here deciding whether he stays or goes? Please raise your hand. No? Then we're all talking about. So are Sen. Coburn, Specter, and the rest. To each our own capacity and ability to weigh in on the process. Not content to be enraged by that, you cite the founding fathers and equate it to "voting in the president's cabinet."

I would just add that the founding fathers favored appointments because the appointing executive would be accountable for his appointee's actions - via elections. so when we're talking about AG, we're also talking about Bush. When Coburn takes a stance, he does so as an elected official who will be accountable for his views. Which part of this process would youi like to eliminate again?

As for your other objections, the record is quite thick on these issues and I am pressed for time this morning.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 9:23 AM

Doc Neaves wrote (April 20, 2007 07:51 AM):

At what point will you stop this madness and say no more, from here on, I fight for what's right?

That's exactly my point. I think that what Gonzales has done has been "not right". In my opinion, therefore, getting rid of him is the right thing to do. Obviously, I don't get the make the decision (for which Gonzales should be grateful), but I think that if he doesn't have the good sense and grace to resign, the president ought to fire him.

Mr Lynn wrote (April 20, 2007 08:40 AM):

Mr. Gonzales should just shut up and say, "I have nothing more to tell you. The US attorneys were canned; there was nothing illegal about it. End of story." And don't give them any more documents, for heaven's sake!

That might be OK in the short term; as I wrote earlier:

... had they said from the outset that they had every right to fire the attorneys it would have looked rather draconian, but I think that it would have squelched this tempest in a teapot.

But think about the long-term implications of the executive branch telling the Congress to "get bent" whenever the Congress wants information. The Congress has an important job to do in providing oversight of the executive branch, just as the executive branch provides a check on the Congress (a job they bungled, IMO, in the Cold Cash Jefferson affair).

That we're saddled with partisan swine like Leaky, Trashcan Chuckie, et al doesn't change this situation.

If we discount the voices in liberal heads that proclaim - predictably - that this was all some dastardly Rovian plot, there's no evidence that Bush, Gonzales or anybody in the White House or DoJ committed an illegal act. I think that, for all the hoopla and arm-waving, the Senate will be forced to realize this (and if Bush plays his cards right, he can make them look like the partisan fools that they are).


What sort of precedent do we want to set? That the executive will submit to Congressional oversight, as it is constitutionally bound to do; or that the executive will fight Congressional oversight tooth-and-nail? What will we do if some future president or Attorney General DOES commit a crime and then refuses to cooperate with a Congressional investigation?

In my view, the job of conservatives and Republicans in this matter is NOT to wave our arms and claim that Gonzales should stonewall the Congress. Rather, it's to point out that it is the CONGRESS, especially the filthy democrats who infest it, who are abusing their authority by engaging in a partisan witchhunt. Let's make the offenders pay at the ballot box, not damage the system.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 9:53 AM

Indeed, docjim, the real damage will be at the ballot box, and keeping AG on board will have dire electoral consequences for the GOP.

If AG stays in, there is barely any breathing room for any other domestic political issues. More subpoenas, Goodling testifies under immunity, we find out more about how USAs were coerced into pursuing voter fraud claims against Democrats that their own offices had already declared baseless in writing. And tying that to trumped-up corruption prosecutions like the one in Milwaukee under Steven Biskupic - who was too ashamed to try to defend his wrongly gained conviction before the Court of Appeals, and sent a lackey instead to face the music.

Also, amidst additional subpoenaed documents will come more incriminating communications between the Abramoff camp and the white house that will fit nicely on a timeline with specific legislative initiatives and other political favors.

Does anyone here advocating for keeping Gonzales have any idea how bad this is all going to look? A personnel issue will have become a political one, and then morphed into a criminal one, into a flagrant constitutional one. Then the White House will have nothing left but yell about "you meddling kids" like an unmasked scooby-doo villain. Coburn is no dummy and, being elected, he is cannot remain entirely estranged from the concepts of honesty and accountability, however foreign they might be to the White House.

From a strictly partisan standpoint, I would say, please leave AG in! But it's too horrible to watch everything grind to a halt for this idiocy.

Posted by Immolate [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 10:02 AM


I find your concern for preserving the White House's ability to effect policy... poignant, in a perverse and ironic sort of way.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 10:16 AM


Hey, I've acknowledged that I'm arguing my own political interests by advocating AG's removal The best answer I can give as to why is that I think there's a point at which resignation is the only honorable option. I would consider his resignation to be honorable and think it would redeem his reputation to a significant degree. Such things do matter in the public sphere - it's not all about who can bully whom to what degree. But the hour is growing late.

I think there are some significant, criminal abuses of power under the surface here, and that the WH took a fork in the road early on to defend their privilege to conceal the evidence, or die trying. I very much want to see some portion of the truth come out, impeachment or not, that's not as important.

The yammering about Clinton is also way irrelevant. That admin did some corrupt things, but they were investigated up and down. No less should be done here - not under some politcal "fairness Doctrine", but because constitutional issues and the integrity of the federal government are clearly in play.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 10:55 AM

Doc scribbled ...

Monkei...I'm not supporting him because he has an R next to his name, you idiot. Only a brain dead democrat could change what I said around to that (straw man argument, is what it's called) and then berate me for an argument I never made. Well, I guess we know how much of a mental midget you are. Thanks for showing us. We can now disregard all of YOUR posts as a Democratic attack hack.

Oh my. I DON'T RECALL (lol) directing my comments to you, but now that you mention it, yes, there is no other reason than to continue to support Gonzo other than either you have not been on this planet, you have been out of the country in some third world location with no electricity or communications, or you missed the testimony entirely or just listened to the condensed version from Rush ... I am not a democractic attack hack, I am a moderate neither party attack hack which you can still disregard, but I bet you can't. You have the utter primal desire to continue to support the enbattled Gonzo who remembers being in meetings but can't remember what was said in the meetings ... classic.

Hey, take a quick gander at the comments on here, plenty of right wingers have real issues with Gonzo also, but I guess you missed that ... maybe if they only had an (R) by their names you could agree with them?

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 12:36 PM

Monkei, maybe you haven't seen my posts, and maybe I haven't placed enough of them on CQ for you to see, but I have been an opponent of Alberton Gonzales since the day Bush advocated him. I think there are many things he's done wrong. This does not give me the right to call for his resignation. I, like anyone here, can have my opinion. But when you constantly spout lies and twist the truth, you do yourself a disservice, not to mention the country.
Tell me what he's done wrong that he should be fired for, or that he should resign. That he did something not as good as your opinion says he should have? And you have exactly what to base this on? No experience? No other AG who came to the hill to explain something like this, since it's never been done before? And when did any Democrat have to come before the Senate to answer questions about something that wasn't illegal?
The whole point is that the Senate does not have the authority to do what it's doing. It's role in advice and consent was done when they okayed the AG. They DO NOT have oversight, and in so saying they do, they take on responsibilities clearly given to the president. Yes, THIS will cause a constitutional crisis. Why? Because the congress is acting AGAINST the constitution, and no one is stopping them.
No other reason to support him except that he's got an R, huh? Well, how about the fact (not missed by other democrats with brains, mind you, just YOU, apparently) he's done nothing wrong, nothing illegal, and therefore, should NOT be in front of congress for ANY reason. Of course, I guess a little thing like not being guilty means nothing to YOU, you partisan hack. Just attack somebody, there's blood in the water, jump on the wagon, quick, I'll look GOOD and SMART attacking him, everyone else is, no lose situation. You see, for you, it's all about the R or D next to a name, no matter what you say.

"The yammering about Clinton is also way irrelevant. "
No, it is EXACTLY relevant. To compare, you have to compare to past administrations, and they are the most recent. If for no other reason, they are relevant for that reason. Any idiot would know that. Not to mention that Clinton actually broke several laws, yet never got investigated until he lied under oath.

"That admin did some corrupt things"
And got investigated AND busted for exactly how many? That's right, none.

"but they were investigated up and down."
Show me ONE investigation where they didn't lie, conceal evidence, and basically claim excecutive privelege. Here, Bush cooperates MORE than the law allows, yet you say it's WORSE? PUHLEASE.

"No less should be done here"
with not only NO evidence of a crime, but everyone from Leaky to ColdBurn admitting there's been no crime, you think Gonzales should be investigated? Just how does this compute in your world? Do you think all citizens who haven't committed a crime should be investigated just in case they may have broken a law somewhere?

" - not under some politcal "fairness Doctrine","
The Fairness Doctrine stated that you couldn't have opinion of one side without providing equal time for the other side. Of course, this is only for Republicans. Democrats can still have all three major networks, CNN, etc., and still not have to give equal time, because that's just "news". The Fairness Doctrine was anything but.

"but because constitutional issues and the integrity of the federal government are clearly in play."
Yes, and the only one that is in play is the attack on the AG by congress, clearly extraconstitutional in nature, but not their first. First, they want to take over the job of the war. Extraconstitutional. Now, after approving Gonzales, they want to tell him to resign. Again, extraconstitutional. Unless, of course, you think you can find in the constitution where congress has the right to FIRE Gonzales, they damn well don't have the authority to ask for his resignation. Now, you want to talk about honorable? Reid saying the war is lost and Coburn deciding it was time for the AG to go are exactly those kinds of things people should resign after saying.

Posted by: biwah at April 20, 2007 10:16 AM

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 1:07 PM

Doc, there's actually quite a body of evidence that could support several criminal investigations of the white House and DOJ starting tomorrow. It won't happen tomorrow, but it just might happen. That's why all these right-wing tweakers are hollering that this is all insignificant - a claim undercut by the hollwering itself.

Your Clinton derangement doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had their very lengthy kick at the can and found nothing. That's checks and balances, e.g. congressional oversight per the constitution, something you support in some contexts, apparently, but not others.

I don't think they'll find nothing here, but the point is they can try, and that that effort is an appropriate service to the American people.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 5:06 PM

"Doc, there's actually quite a body of evidence that could support several criminal investigations of the white House and DOJ starting tomorrow."
Name one.

"It won't happen tomorrow, but it just might happen."
Wishful thinking.

"That's why all these right-wing tweakers are hollering that this is all insignificant - a claim undercut by the hollwering itself."
A statement that disagrees with itself. The amount of noise generated in response to accusations is proof of guilt? They claim innocence, therefore they are guilty? Or are they guilty because the claim innocence TOO loudly for you? Or would it be some other reason if they did it quietly? What a laughable argument you make.

"Your Clinton derangement doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had their very lengthy kick at the can and found nothing."
Had NO kick at the can, you mean. With the deck stacked against them (yeah, a majority of Republicans, if you get to count the Democrats masquerading as Republicans, what we call RINO's, like Snowe, Jeffords, Hagel, etc.). With the FBI, CIA, and every other agency under the Clinton's control, they had massive amounts of cooperation. Oooh, yeah, they had their chance at the can. Proved him wrong. They still didn't remove him from office, even though he'd been proven guilty of a crime IN OFFICE. Perjury, just what you accuse Bush of, saying he should go, but no, not in your mind, that's not enough, lying isn't lying when you're a Democrat, it's just speaking.

"That's checks and balances, e.g. congressional oversight per the constitution, something you support in some contexts, apparently, but not others."

I support congressional oversight where it is mandated, and not where it isn't. This, apparently, is lost on you. What is it about AGAINST THE LAW that you Democrats find so irritating? You think it's just okay to break the law when it suits you, but fry any conservative that once had a relative that thought about dating someone who almost broke the law once.

I don't think they'll find nothing here, but the point is they can try, and that that effort is an appropriate service to the American people.

Posted by: biwah at April 20, 2007 01:07 PM

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 5:12 PM

don't think they'll find nothing here, but the point is they can try, and that that effort is an appropriate service to the American people.

Posted by: biwah at April 20, 2007 01:07 PM

Sorry, missed this one. So, you, ColdBurn, Leaky, and everydamnbody else thinks they've done nothing wrong, but it's okay to whine, complain, raise cain, make a big fuss, then demand a man's resignation from a Cabinet Post just because so many people are whining, complaining, and raising cain? Meanwhile, instead of holding hearings and solving problems, they're investigating where no crime exists, investigating into a job that's not theirs (micromanaging the war), and flying to every garden spot they can think of on our dimes, family included. But no work, no getting anything done, that would be, oh, I don't know, following through on campaign promises? Too much like work for you Democrats to show up for work?

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 6:15 PM

Hey Doc, I agree, maybe the Dems should be investigating a whole host of other more serious screwups by this administration especially now that the AG has been reduced to a bumbling idiot.

Move along there is NOTHING else to see here.

Posted by grognard [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 9:24 AM

“They serve at the pleasure of the President”. OK where is the document from the President himself that says “terminate” these people? All sorts of people from Gonzo’s subordinates to Rove have been claiming to “know” what the President wants and gave Gonzo the termination list the but the bottom line remains that it is [supposedly] the President who wants them removed,. So where is the document with the list of people to fire with the signature of the President? If a subordinate came into my office with a list of engineers to be terminated claiming he “knows” that the CEO wants them fired I would be laughing my ass off. At the very least I would look at the performance reviews and get any order for termination in writing.